That is straight out of the current academia of intersectional nonsense. They propose an idea as a conclusion rather than a question to be backed by theory and evidence. How this ever got accepted in academia is beyond me.
In the U.S., I would add to that, not only the teaching, but the treating of contested political ideas as if they are accepted fact. Nowhere is that more prevalent than in the so-called mainstream media. Case in point: My small-city daily paper, mind you a supposed general-readership paper, had in large type this headline on its homepage today: The Inside Story of How John Roberts Failed To Save Abortion Rights.
That was one of several headlines in so-called "news" outlets--or what used to be news--on the abortion issue recently that I had to actually re-read and re-re-read to be sure I was seeing it correctly. Not to go off-topic here (because I hate when people do that), but it's just one example of many I could cite involving any hot-button issue such as race.
I canceled my subscription to this particular publication because of this kind of crap a long time ago, and made sure I wrote the editor to tell him why. I said you have no regard for the political diversity of your readership and don't seem to care if you turn large numbers of them off. (This paper went from being more-or-less normal to being Woke in just the last two years.)
I'm so sick of being "talked at" by so-called "reporters," and my revulsion is amplified by the fact that I went to journalism school and this is NOT what we were taught. We were taught editorializing was for the editorial page. But now, editorials are mixed in with the "news," and what really bothers me is that less seasoned (i.e., younger) readers are getting a disservice because it's harder for them to discern the difference. No wonder we're raising a generation of little Stalins.
(Sorry for the rant but that phrase just touched a nerve in me after seeing that today.)
The report shows that disparities do persist - that racism and discrimination remain a factor in shaping people’s life outcomes. And it is clear about the fact that abhorrent racist attitudes continue in society, within institutions, and, increasingly, online. It calls for action to tackle this.
This report makes clear the UK is not a post-racial society and that racism is still a real force which has the power to deny opportunity and painfully disrupt lives.
That is the issue with the “systemic racism” bullshit, because racism is literally everywhere.
There are many countries in the world with actual systemic racism, codified in law.
Britain isn’t one of them nor is the USA, or Canada where I live.
But everyone is racist. The Indians hate the Chinese and vise versa for example, it’s surprising there isn’t open warfare between them in the lower mainland of BC.
People are tribal, always have been.
The problem today and with CRT is it is an attempt to say that only white people are or even can be racist.
We all have a duty to fight racism, don’t mind me if I ignore those who attempt to use it to pull down society.
Pat, the definition of systemic: fundamental to a predominant social, economic, or political practice, compared to your comment: “…because racism is literally everywhere.”, That sounds systemic to me! The definition of racism: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; exactly how are Blacks racist? Rationalization: the act, process, or result of rationalizing: a way of describing, interpreting, or explaining something (such as bad behavior) that makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc., Pat, I propose to you that there is a distinct possibility, this is what you’re doing!
Let's dispose of "blacks" as a collective. In the US, a multitude of communities exist, wealthy to poor, of individuals with various amounts of African genetic backgrounds. To lump all of them into a a single group is, IMO, a throwback to a very recent past revived in the service of a malign ideology.
I'm 80. In my lifetime I've witnessed a society that tolerated routine racist sneers, to a substantial majority celebrating the message of Martin Luther King Jr, to a period of chaos evolving into the racist racketeering of Jesse Jackson and others, to a society that is intolerant of racist sneers.
Intolerant, that is, unless the sneers are directed at those with white European genes, or Asian genes, or African genes in an individual who fails to genuflect, or at least remain silent, with respect to CRT, BLM, or intersectionality.
Further, there is the campaign to denigrate the habits that have proven to be successful in our complex society, such as punctuality, deferring gratification, and diligence in securing a good education while simultaneously pointing at the poverty of those who don't value these habits as proof of victimization. Curiously, people without African genes who lack those habits aren't also categorized as victims of something-or-other supremacy.
So much of this seems to me to be so blatantly irrational. That such is honored by so many people who are articulate and clearly are motivated by good will is beyond my understanding. I also think that some of the advocates are indifferent in their adherence to those ideologies because their underlying goals are to disrupt western society if favor of some dreamed of utopia.
Andrew, evidently, you think the European Genetical whites are being mistreated; the same goes for the Genetical Asian folk. You seem to think they’re withering under the slings and arrows of “…CRT, BLM, or intersectionality.” How could anyone believe that not everyone is enjoying equally the milk and honey of this land?
On the one hand, you say: “Let's dispose of "blacks" as a collective. “Then you turn around and say “…without African genes….” I think it’s safe to say there is some incongruence hear; you know the inverse to without, don’t you?
“Further, there is the campaign to denigrate the habits that have proven to be successful in our complex society, such as punctuality, deferring gratification, and diligence in securing a good education while simultaneously pointing at the poverty of those who don't value these habits as proof of victimization. Curiously, people without (AFRICAN GENES) who lack those habits aren't also categorized as victims of something-or-other supremacy.”
I capitalized (African genes) in the above paragraph; I believe it would be futile to ask you if any of the below described the above paragraph. I think few on this Substack will care, so we’ll leave it to happenstance for comment.
Below are definitions of racism:
A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
OR
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
OR
The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
Thanks for your reply. I think we have different premises.
You propose that I don't grasp that all people don't benefit equally in this society. On the contrary, my point is that individuals have agency in this modern era, and their individual choices generally will have positive or negative effects on their economic results.
I infer that you believe that I deny the existence of racism as posited in the definitions you cited. Not true. It remains an ugly reality. But contrast the success of people with African genes who came to the US from the Caribbean with the subset of individuals with the same physical appearance in the poverty stricken inner city areas. By what I understand to be your measure, both groups should fail to achieve economic success. Or perhaps you hold that all should receive the same benefits without regard for their efforts and talents. If so, I disagree.
Nor do I hold that those who are successful, whatever their genetic heritage, are suffering from CRT and the like. The true victims are the poor who are convinced by those ideologies that effort is pointless and that they are owed something for nothing.
I'd like this several more times if I was allowed.
Their is no logic train when dealing with these cultural issues. It's all subjective. I'm younger than you, but racism was a much different word back in the 1960-80s than it is today.
Racism is genetic. We're all predisposed to hanging with our own, whether it's sports fans, State pride, Country pride or racial pride. It's an instinct, and we all have it.
In the US, racist policy is out of control. We've turned it into it's own business. And, we've established that racism is only a trait of European descent, which is a very clever way of creating voter blocks.
Every culture/race has it's racists, but in the US we only pin that tag on one, which is how a certain party keeps racism alive.
JustMe....I promised myself I wouldn't respond to any of your future comments, but I lapsed. You can have the last word.
Jon, there is no gene for racism! Your whole comment is pure balderdash, nonsense, and hogwash! Your worldview has been corrupted by ignorance; please educate yourself.
Took my girls to the British museum the other day to see the Rosetta Stone and pointed out that a museum like that only exists because of the empire and the people that went exploring and collecting
Much would be lost or still buried otherwise
Is what it is now, amazing place to visit if history is your thing.
Came on here to share that line, but you beat me to it, Jon. That line comes from the video. If anyone skipped over the embedded video, go back and watch it. Well worth your time.
“What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they are accepted fact,”
That comment alone would get my vote.
That is straight out of the current academia of intersectional nonsense. They propose an idea as a conclusion rather than a question to be backed by theory and evidence. How this ever got accepted in academia is beyond me.
In the U.S., I would add to that, not only the teaching, but the treating of contested political ideas as if they are accepted fact. Nowhere is that more prevalent than in the so-called mainstream media. Case in point: My small-city daily paper, mind you a supposed general-readership paper, had in large type this headline on its homepage today: The Inside Story of How John Roberts Failed To Save Abortion Rights.
That was one of several headlines in so-called "news" outlets--or what used to be news--on the abortion issue recently that I had to actually re-read and re-re-read to be sure I was seeing it correctly. Not to go off-topic here (because I hate when people do that), but it's just one example of many I could cite involving any hot-button issue such as race.
I canceled my subscription to this particular publication because of this kind of crap a long time ago, and made sure I wrote the editor to tell him why. I said you have no regard for the political diversity of your readership and don't seem to care if you turn large numbers of them off. (This paper went from being more-or-less normal to being Woke in just the last two years.)
I'm so sick of being "talked at" by so-called "reporters," and my revulsion is amplified by the fact that I went to journalism school and this is NOT what we were taught. We were taught editorializing was for the editorial page. But now, editorials are mixed in with the "news," and what really bothers me is that less seasoned (i.e., younger) readers are getting a disservice because it's harder for them to discern the difference. No wonder we're raising a generation of little Stalins.
(Sorry for the rant but that phrase just touched a nerve in me after seeing that today.)
Jon,Would you give her your vote if she said:
The report shows that disparities do persist - that racism and discrimination remain a factor in shaping people’s life outcomes. And it is clear about the fact that abhorrent racist attitudes continue in society, within institutions, and, increasingly, online. It calls for action to tackle this.
This report makes clear the UK is not a post-racial society and that racism is still a real force which has the power to deny opportunity and painfully disrupt lives.
Context context context
Everything is relative
That is the issue with the “systemic racism” bullshit, because racism is literally everywhere.
There are many countries in the world with actual systemic racism, codified in law.
Britain isn’t one of them nor is the USA, or Canada where I live.
But everyone is racist. The Indians hate the Chinese and vise versa for example, it’s surprising there isn’t open warfare between them in the lower mainland of BC.
People are tribal, always have been.
The problem today and with CRT is it is an attempt to say that only white people are or even can be racist.
We all have a duty to fight racism, don’t mind me if I ignore those who attempt to use it to pull down society.
Pat, the definition of systemic: fundamental to a predominant social, economic, or political practice, compared to your comment: “…because racism is literally everywhere.”, That sounds systemic to me! The definition of racism: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; exactly how are Blacks racist? Rationalization: the act, process, or result of rationalizing: a way of describing, interpreting, or explaining something (such as bad behavior) that makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc., Pat, I propose to you that there is a distinct possibility, this is what you’re doing!
How are blacks racist?
Let's dispose of "blacks" as a collective. In the US, a multitude of communities exist, wealthy to poor, of individuals with various amounts of African genetic backgrounds. To lump all of them into a a single group is, IMO, a throwback to a very recent past revived in the service of a malign ideology.
I'm 80. In my lifetime I've witnessed a society that tolerated routine racist sneers, to a substantial majority celebrating the message of Martin Luther King Jr, to a period of chaos evolving into the racist racketeering of Jesse Jackson and others, to a society that is intolerant of racist sneers.
Intolerant, that is, unless the sneers are directed at those with white European genes, or Asian genes, or African genes in an individual who fails to genuflect, or at least remain silent, with respect to CRT, BLM, or intersectionality.
Further, there is the campaign to denigrate the habits that have proven to be successful in our complex society, such as punctuality, deferring gratification, and diligence in securing a good education while simultaneously pointing at the poverty of those who don't value these habits as proof of victimization. Curiously, people without African genes who lack those habits aren't also categorized as victims of something-or-other supremacy.
So much of this seems to me to be so blatantly irrational. That such is honored by so many people who are articulate and clearly are motivated by good will is beyond my understanding. I also think that some of the advocates are indifferent in their adherence to those ideologies because their underlying goals are to disrupt western society if favor of some dreamed of utopia.
Andrew, evidently, you think the European Genetical whites are being mistreated; the same goes for the Genetical Asian folk. You seem to think they’re withering under the slings and arrows of “…CRT, BLM, or intersectionality.” How could anyone believe that not everyone is enjoying equally the milk and honey of this land?
On the one hand, you say: “Let's dispose of "blacks" as a collective. “Then you turn around and say “…without African genes….” I think it’s safe to say there is some incongruence hear; you know the inverse to without, don’t you?
“Further, there is the campaign to denigrate the habits that have proven to be successful in our complex society, such as punctuality, deferring gratification, and diligence in securing a good education while simultaneously pointing at the poverty of those who don't value these habits as proof of victimization. Curiously, people without (AFRICAN GENES) who lack those habits aren't also categorized as victims of something-or-other supremacy.”
I capitalized (African genes) in the above paragraph; I believe it would be futile to ask you if any of the below described the above paragraph. I think few on this Substack will care, so we’ll leave it to happenstance for comment.
Below are definitions of racism:
A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
OR
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
OR
The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
Thanks for your reply. I think we have different premises.
You propose that I don't grasp that all people don't benefit equally in this society. On the contrary, my point is that individuals have agency in this modern era, and their individual choices generally will have positive or negative effects on their economic results.
I infer that you believe that I deny the existence of racism as posited in the definitions you cited. Not true. It remains an ugly reality. But contrast the success of people with African genes who came to the US from the Caribbean with the subset of individuals with the same physical appearance in the poverty stricken inner city areas. By what I understand to be your measure, both groups should fail to achieve economic success. Or perhaps you hold that all should receive the same benefits without regard for their efforts and talents. If so, I disagree.
Nor do I hold that those who are successful, whatever their genetic heritage, are suffering from CRT and the like. The true victims are the poor who are convinced by those ideologies that effort is pointless and that they are owed something for nothing.
I'd like this several more times if I was allowed.
Their is no logic train when dealing with these cultural issues. It's all subjective. I'm younger than you, but racism was a much different word back in the 1960-80s than it is today.
Racism is genetic. We're all predisposed to hanging with our own, whether it's sports fans, State pride, Country pride or racial pride. It's an instinct, and we all have it.
In the US, racist policy is out of control. We've turned it into it's own business. And, we've established that racism is only a trait of European descent, which is a very clever way of creating voter blocks.
Every culture/race has it's racists, but in the US we only pin that tag on one, which is how a certain party keeps racism alive.
JustMe....I promised myself I wouldn't respond to any of your future comments, but I lapsed. You can have the last word.
Jon, there is no gene for racism! Your whole comment is pure balderdash, nonsense, and hogwash! Your worldview has been corrupted by ignorance; please educate yourself.
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
Happy to disagree with you, because I don’t agree.
But that’s just me rationalizing.
Gender
Woke
CRT
Climate emergency
Pick your poison
I’d go with
1. Gender
2. Race
3. Post colonialism
4. Climate alarmism
The four horsemen of the Western Apocalypse.
Agreed
Few things are 100% bad.
Took my girls to the British museum the other day to see the Rosetta Stone and pointed out that a museum like that only exists because of the empire and the people that went exploring and collecting
Much would be lost or still buried otherwise
Is what it is now, amazing place to visit if history is your thing.
How about woke?
Yip my vote to!
Came on here to share that line, but you beat me to it, Jon. That line comes from the video. If anyone skipped over the embedded video, go back and watch it. Well worth your time.